The article focuses on introducing probability plotting as a tool for obtaining time-to-paying information. Markov Chain's description of accounts receivable behavior provides a valuable insight into better methods of managing accounts receivable. Probability plotting shares the same role and should be regarded as a complementary rather than a competitive technique. However, both methods have certain advantages, disadvantages and assumptions which are, for the most part different. These differences are important and furnish some guidance in determining whether a method is applicable in a given situation. M.L. Shooman indicated that Markov models work wet and have much appeal as long as the transition probabilities are constant over time. When the probabilities become time dependent, however, the Markov method breaks down, except in a few special cases. When the transition probabilities are not constant over time, a Markovian assumption is violated; but, the plotting approach is still valid and, therefore appears to have broader applicability.

Reviews the book "Principles of Auditing," by Lawrence L. Vance and Wayne S. Boutell.

This paper reported on an experiment designed to answer two questions. Firstly, does human resource accounting information affect stock investment decisions? Secondly, why might human resource accounting information affect stock investment decisions? Related to the first question, in this experiment stock investment decisions were affected by the addition of human resource accounting information to conventional accounting information. Concerning second question, the results of this experiment indicate that the degree of openness of the belief system is not important in explaining decision differences when human resource accounting information is added to conventional accounting information. In conclusion, this research is based on an experiment. The administration of such an experiment occurs under somewhat artificial conditions. Because this study was an experiment using graduate students as subjects, the conclusions of this study cannot be generalized to other decision situations or statement user groups. However, the favorable results of this experiment should justify the additional research that would permit more general conclusions.

The article presents the author's reply to researcher L.S. Revsine's rejoinder on the article "Expectations and Achievements in Income Theory." The author feels that Revsine's comments on the article are based upon a series of misconceptions and unsupported assertions. The author's article was primarily concerned with relationships between ex ante and ex post measures of periodic income and asset values and why both sets of concepts are required. It concluded that the case for current cost accounting cannot be made to rest on the hypothesis that current market prices of assets are reliable indications of the present values of those assets, except under tight conditions; rather, the justification for current cost accounting depends upon a set of other factors. The rejoinder does not challenge successfully the validity of any of the author's analysis. In his rejoinder, Revsine first asserted that the author stated that previous authors have ignored the excess of present values over current market prices of assets for all nonmarginal asset purchases.

Reviews the book "An Analysis of Business Income Concepts," by Allan D. Barton.

Reviews the books "Audit Case," 8th ed., and "Illustrative Audit Papers," 8th ed., by Arthur W. Holmes and Frances E. Moore.

The underlying structure of explanation, prediction and decision making has been examined. A divergence was noted which resulted in conceptual differences among the three notions, including deductive-nomological and statistical forms of causal explanation and causal and coincidental forms of prediction. Nevertheless, all five concepts converge in terms of basic structure which consists of universal generalizations and empirical statements asserting the existence of the antecedent conditions contained in the generalizations. The consequent event is logically deducible from this explanans. The general format may be expressed in symbolic terms as: ... The relationship of accountancy to this model was observed with the conclusion that accounting data may provide the empirical statements contained in the explanans of the nonaccounting models. For analytical purposes, four areas of concern were identified: 1. The definition of predicates contained in all models 2. The confirmation of the generalizations contained in accounting theory 3. The confirmation of the generalizations contained in the nonaccounting theory 4. The accuracy of the interface between the accounting and non-accounting models. To paraphrase Nietzsche once again, what does not destroy accounting theory will make it stronger. The foregoing discussion should help to make accounting theory a larger and clearer target for critical analysis.

This article focuses on the usefulness of a flow chart conceptualization method for better interpretation of auditors' reports on financial statements. Here, the authors have developed a flow chart that covers most reporting situations confronted by certified public accountants. The purpose of the flow chart is to provide students of auditing with an easy to understand logical model of the major reporting possibilities. A definitive understanding of related sections of the "Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, Numbers 1 to 7," however, requires careful reading and study; the flow chart presented here is not intended to relieve students of that task. It is suggested that, if sufficient evidence is obtained through alternative auditing procedures, there is no significant scope limitation, and the report need not be modified from the wording of an unqualified opinion. If part of the examination is made by other auditors, the principal auditor may issue an unqualified, an "except for" qualified, or a disclaimer of opinion. After making any necessary inquiries, if he or she is satisfied with the professional reputation and independence of the other auditor, the principal auditor normally should render an unqualified opinion.

The article presents an analysis of attitudes of a sample of the American Accounting Association (AAA) members towards the periodical "The Accounting Review." Some conclusions suggested from the above analysis are respondents appeared basically to be satisfied with the research published in the periodical, which is similar to the conclusion of scholars Edwin H. Caplan and Charles H. Griffin cited earlier. Responding practitioners seemed to be concerned about the read ability of the published research. Although their attitudes were in general agreement with using multiple research methods as deemed appropriate, the analysis suggested a stronger interest in publishing abstracts. Responding academicians were not as much interested in publishing abstracts as in reporting the detailed construction of the techniques used. Responding practitioners appeared to favor publishing research which is different from that of the other two journals, the "Journal of Accounting Research" and "Journal of Accountancy." Responding academicians appeared to favor differentiating the type of research publishable in the periodical only from what is published in the Journal of Accountancy.

Reviews the book "Accounting Graffiti," by Martin C. Gosman.